Marcia and I have a difference of opinion over this image so I thought I'd check with all y'all. In contrast to the 'normal' process of using slow shutter speeds to capture movement, this is a stack of 44 separate images (using LR/Enfuse) each taken at higher shutter speeds (varied, up to 1/600 @f/2.9).

Mike.

Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.~ Jean Cooke ~

As a demonstration of the effect one can achieve by stacking 44 images I think it's somewhat interesting. But as an image standing on its own merits I'm not sure the effort was worth it, quite frankly.

As a demonstration of the effect one can achieve by stacking 44 images I think it's somewhat interesting. But as an image standing on its own merits I'm not sure the effort was worth it, quite frankly.

Sorry, Mike, but I agree with pop; I suspect you could have put the time to better use. As someone once wrote about surgery, "The feasibility of an operation is no indication for its performance".

Mike,All I'm addressing is the water itself. I hate the thick cream on water look that often results from using a slow shutter speed. But the water here looks more natural. Did it need 44 exposures? Probably not. But I do like it.

Thanks for all the comments, folks. Justan, Kodachrome 25 was my favourite film, and I do like the smoothness of moving water but I was just playing with the idea of using stacking to create movement. Just an experiment. Did it need 44 images? Probably not.

Here's another image made with 12 images.

Mike.

Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.~ Jean Cooke ~

I really like the technique, its something I've been playing with, but only 3 shutter speeds. My reasoning is that I want to try to convey the smooth flowing water with the dramatic side of the individual drops overlaid in some parts, the exposure in the middle holding the two parts together somewhat. Like most things though, the devil is in the detail, and I've yet to make it work how I see it in my mind, I think a waterfall would be a nice application, I found the surf is to variable, and it all looks kinda odd, while rivers don't seem variable enough, for me that is.

Marcia and I have a difference of opinion over this image so I thought I'd check with all y'all. In contrast to the 'normal' process of using slow shutter speeds to capture movement, this is a stack of 44 separate images (using LR/Enfuse) each taken at higher shutter speeds (varied, up to 1/600 @f/2.9).

Mike.

The technique is interesting. I 'd agree with the others that the shortcomings of the final result are more due to composition and final processing.

I've seen this done with a meadow of wild flowers to good success. You don't know 'till you've tried it.

I like it... she doesn't. Seems most people here agree with her. One of the joys of digital is that 'playing' is free - in terms of film and processing costs, anyway. To each his own, or her own, as the case may be.

Mike.

Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.~ Jean Cooke ~

Don't despair, Mike. I have a feeling that a large print of either one might be an instant winner at our local Fine Arts Center. Spent part of yesterday browsing through that establishment, and saw a lot of stuff hanging on the walls that's a lot less interesting than either of these. Seriously, I think both are very relaxing. #1, especially, would be a conversation piece hanging in a living room.

You can do the same with with simple, in-camera, multiple exposures. It is effectively stacking, and the effects on moving subjects, or vice versa, when you move the camera, produce similar results. Though when you move the camera, the effects are more often than not, more like pointilism and you really have to work at it to produce something different. The whole idea is to experiment and produce what appeals to you and not experiment for the sake of it. At some point you have to decide what you like, what works for you and "stack" or set the number exposures that work toward that end. Looking at your two results, Mike, the second is more appealing to me. On the other hand, if it was a great expanse of water, it might work and be just as appealing. There is nothing wrong with obscuring the subject matter, or otherwise making it look different, per se, but in the end it has to appeal to you and hopefully other people. It has to express something and not just be obscure. Good results, no matter how they are done, always speak for themselves.

I like it... she doesn't. Seems most people here agree with her. One of the joys of digital is that 'playing' is free - in terms of film and processing costs, anyway. To each his own, or her own, as the case may be.

Mike.

Love the playing Mike. I don't have my socks knocked off by them... but I actually find them really interesting and quite refreshing to see experimentation and 'playing'. Keep them coming!

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the original image sold as a 50"x60" canvas. We, as photographers might have issues with it, but the commercial art-buying public just might gobble it up. I know I will draw blood with this next comment, but if it was cropped to more of a letterbox or 16:9 ratio, it may even sell more!